city centre reality check
It seems lots of people like to speak with no knowledge base. Mr. Mallow seems to be the prime offender, although obviously he is not alone.
These are the facts that are not disputed:
The sign belonged to the merchants and was taken down and destroyed by the city. The city has confirmed this in the past and we have that documentation.
The city owns the concourse.
State laws give tenants specific rights in absence of lease documents to the contrary.
The city has never given us a lease, despite multiple requests for one.
What is in dispute is who is responsible for what. We keep trying to negotiate these points and the city keeps stalling hoping to never resolve them. We believe we have certain responsibilities and believe the city, as concourse owner has others. The city may have another view, but we can't get any meaningful negotiation to even know what that is.
We have been misled and need resolution. Mr. Mallow has poisoned any possibility of negotiation. That is why the law suit is being filed.
For those of you who rent, would you expect to make structural changes, such as a new roof? I would guess not. Would you have been patient enough to wait years. I think not. We have gone out of our way to work with the city. Unfortunately some of the representatives of the city, especially Mr. Mallow ,just want to stay in the papers without allowing for any resolution.
Mr. Roach also disappoints me. I assume this relates to some political aspirations. Prior to this year he was our advocate. Reputation is something valuable. One should not sell it cheaply. Perhaps you can think this out before continuing, or at least speak with us to see both sides.